A Carbon budget for canada - A collaborative framework for federal and provincial climate leadership - West Coast Environmental Law
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
A Carbon budget for canada A collaborative framework for federal and provincial climate leadership By Andrew Gage Staff Lawyer West Coast Environmental Law With material from Gaya Gnanalingam December 2015
Acknowledgements
A Carbon Budget for Canada was written by Andrew Gage with material from Gaya
Gnanalingam. West Coast Environmental Law would like to acknowledge reviews
conducted by Deborah Carlson (West Coast Environmental Law), and Christian
Holz, and the encouragement of Louise Comeau. The views expressed in this paper
are the views of Andrew Gage and West Coast Environmental Law and do not nec-
essarily reflect the views of the reviewers.
The following photos are used under a creative commons licence without modifica-
tion (other than cropping): “Westside Kelowna Fire, July 21st 2015”, by Preserved
Light Photography (p. 8); “Calculator”, by Anssi Koskinen (cover, p.12); “Melting
Ice Caps”, by Gerald Simmons (p. 23); “Broad leaf maple”, by Steven Petty (p. 27);
“Riverfront Ave Calgary Flood 2013”, by Ryan L.C. Quan (cover, p. 35); “Contrac-
tion/Desiccation cracks in dry earth (Sonoran desert, Mexico)”, by Tomas Castelazo
(p. 30).
Photos on pp. 7, 19 (also on cover) and 21 (also on cover) are public domain, courte-
sy of Public Domain Photos, NASA and US Geological Service, respectively.
West Coast Environmental Law is grateful for the gen-
erous support of the Law Foundation of British Colum-
bia. The views expressed in this paper are those of of
West Coast Environmental Law.
West Coast is a non-profit group of environmental law strategists and
analysts dedicated to safeguarding the environment through law. We
believe in a just and sustainable society where people are empowered
to protect the environment and where environmental protection is law.
For over 40 years, we have played a role in shaping BC and Canada’s
most significant environmental laws, and have provided support to citi-
zens, First Nations, and communities on practically every environmen-
tal law issue imaginable.
A Carbon budget for canada i contents Summary iii Summary of Recommendations: v Part I - Introduction 1 Part II – Provinces and Federal Roles in Planning for Climate Change 4 Constitutional Powers and Climate Change 4 Existing federal and provincial climate collaboration 6 Models of federal-provincial coordination 7 Inter-Provincial coordination 8 Part III – Carbon Targets and Carbon Budgets 10 An overview of Canada’s climate change efforts 10 Setting Canadian targets 11 Lessons from the United Kingdom 13 Features of a made in Canada carbon-budget 17 Part IV – A national scientific body 21 Examples of science-based bodies 21 Provincial Expert Climate Change Bodies 25 Need for a scientific body 27 PART V – Budget Implementation Planning 30 Provincial Implementation 32 Goals related to planning and implementation 34 Budget Implementation Planning in the UK 34 Carbon Budget Planning in Canada 36 Part VI - Accountability and Incentives 38 Transparency and accountability 38 Consideration of carbon budgets 40 Revisiting the Canada Health Act 44
ii A carbon budget for canada Summary Climate change is one of biggest challenges faced by the world today. Each year, the world emits more fossil fuel pollution and other greenhouse gases – more than the world’s natural systems can absorb – creating a heat trapping blanket around the world and disrupting global weather patterns. Canada has not, unfortunately, played a leadership role on addressing the impacts of climate change. Successive Canadian, and in many cases provincial, governments have paid lip-service to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while failing to develop a clear plan to doing so. The election of a new Canadian government represents an opportunity to set a new course on climate change. The Liberal Party of Canada’s election campaign did not propose specific national legislated or policy tools, but instead promised to allow provinces to adopt their own approaches, with the federal government playing a col- laborative role, providing coordination and support. How might such coordination take place and what are the respective roles of the federal and provincial governments? The purpose of this paper is to propose an over- arching legal planning framework that will help guide federal and provincial govern- ments in developing and implementing laws, policies and tools that work at both a provincial and national level. Without such a framework, each province, and the federal government, risk making decisions that are inconsistent with efforts in other provinces and which do not result in a national approach. Key elements of the framework we propose are: Carbon Budgets Increasingly, scientists are talking about a global carbon budget – an amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted over a particular time while still achieving a target. However, setting short- and mid-term national and provincial carbon bud- gets facilitates easy comparison and coordination between provincial targets and a national target, as well as aiding in planning. A carbon budget approach adopted in the United Kingdom has allowed that country to achieve impressive greenhouse gas reductions of 23% reduction in GHG emissions in 2012 relative to 1990 levels. The UK is on track to deliver a 35% reduction relative to 1990 levels by 2020. By contrast, Canada’s current national target is a 2% increase over 1990 levels by 2020, and we are not expected to achieve it. Science Committee A national science committee, with representatives from each of the provinces, should advise Canada’s governments on how setting carbon budgets and planning to reduce greenhouse gases, as well as evaluating progress towards achieving those budgets.
A Carbon budget for canada iii Canada has experience with using independent expert bodies to advise government, and climate change is a politically charged, highly technical issue which calls out for such advice. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSE- WIC), set up by the provincial governments working with the federal government, but now a key part of federal legislation related to Species At Risk, provides an im- portant model of how an expert body can include representation from the provinces and enhance federal-provincial cooperation. Carbon Budget Planning Carbon budgets are only valuable if governments work to meet them. With coordi- nation from Environment Canada, each province and the federal government must develop and implement carbon budget implementation plans which will demonstrate how their carbon budgets will be met. Carbon budgets can easily be broken down into sub-budgets, allowing for detailed planning at a sector, or government agency, level. Carbon budget plans should fully “cost” the different sources of emissions, demon- strating that the measures undertaken are likely to deliver on the carbon budgets at the relevant points in time. Accountability and Incentives All levels of government should have real incentives to implement their plans and meet their carbon budgets. Regular reporting of government progress towards achieving carbon budgets, includ- ing audits by the independent Science Committee, will allow the public to hold their governments accountable to the carbon budgets. Governments should enact laws requiring carbon budgets to be considered in any relevant government decisions and in the context of any new government laws or policies. Finally, the new government’s promise of financial assistance suggests an approach, modelled on the Canada Health Act, in which federal funding is available based on each province’s effective and good faith participation in the carbon budget frame- work. Together these components provide a framework that can help coordinate provin- cial and federal action on climate change that is science-based and transparent. We believe that federal-provincial coordination on climate change can result in a strong, national commitment to fighting climate change, but only if it takes place in the con- text of a credible national framework. We offer this report as a contribution to the discussion on how to achieve such a framework.
iv A Carbon budget for canada
Summary of Recommendations:
1. Set annual national and provincial budgets for a rolling 15 year pe-
riod based on Canada’s long-term goals, the advice of the Scien-
tific Committee and on the goal of meeting or exceed Canada’s fair
share in a global emissions budget is sufficient to prevent danger-
ous climate change.
2. That the federal government, in conjunction with the provincial
governments, create a permanent and independent national Sci-
ence Committee charged with advising all levels of government on
greenhouse gas reduction targets, budgets, planning and imple-
mentation, and with evaluating progress towards achieving those
targets and budgets. This Science Committee should include rep-
resentatives nominated by the provinces.
3. Environment Canada should lead a process in which each province
and the federal government develops and adopt carbon budget im-
plementation plans, demonstrating how their carbon budgets and
the national carbon budget will be achieved. Such plans should
fully “cost” the different sources of emissions, demonstrating that
the measures undertaken are likely to achieve the carbon budgets
at the relevant points in time. Where it becomes clear that budgets
will not be met, the process must provide for the updating of the
budget implementation plans.
4. Federal and provincial governments, and the Science Commit-
tee, should report publicly on a regular basis on progress towards
achieving carbon budgets and on the implementation of carbon
budget plans.
5. Federal and provincial governments should amend their laws to
ensure that carbon budgets, and carbon budget implementation
plans, are incorporated into all relevant government decisions.
6. Federal and provincial governments should enact laws requiring
the evaluation of the impact of any new laws or policies on the gov-
ernment’s ability to meet its carbon budgets.
7. Based on the model of the Canada Health Act, the federal govern-
ment should provide funding to the provinces based on their effec-
tive and good faith participation in the carbon budget framework.
A carbon budget for canada 1
Part I - Introduction
Climate change is one of biggest challenges faced by the world today. Each year, the
world emits more fossil fuel pollution and other greenhouse gases – more than the
world’s natural systems can absorb – creating a heat trapping blanket around the
world. With the global atmosphere capturing and retain more solar radiation, global
temperatures are increasing, disrupting global weather patterns and causing wide-
spread harm.
The impacts of climate change are already being seen around the world. Glaciers,
permafrost and Arctic sea ice are melting, oceans are becoming increasingly acid-
ic (an effect caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), ecosystems
are changing, and areas of extreme drought are increasing. Freshwater, a resource
many of us take for granted will become even more limited, land that once sustained
whole communities will become unproductive, and more people will die from heat
waves, floods and diseases like malaria.
Canada has not, unfortunately, played a leadership role on addressing the impacts
of climate change. In the early 1990s, when governments around the world be-
gan grappling with climate change, Canada played a leadership role, signing the
resulting Kyoto Protocol in 1997. However, since then successive Canadian, and in
many cases provincial, governments have paid lip-service to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, while failing to develop a clear plan to doing so.
Instead of reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, those emissions have risen
substantially since Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol, until relatively recently, when
a combination of an economic downturn and actions taken primarily at the provin-
cial level has resulted in a small reduction in emissions.
The election of a new Canadian government represents an opportunity to set a new
course on climate change.
Most environmental organizations have called for national level leadership, with
nationally-set targets, a national carbon price, and other measures implemented
Canada wide. Discussions about the legal tools to reduce GHG emissions often focus
on specific national laws, policies and incentives that drive reductions in the emis-
sions, such as carbon pricing,1 energy efficiency, use of renewables and various other
measures can achieve these goals.
Canada’s environmental community has generally looked to the federal government
for leadership on climate for several reasons:
• Getting strong climate change legislation past Parliament was viewed as
preferable to having to press for strong laws in each of the Provincial Legis-
latures;
• Action by the federal government can avoid issues of inconsistent approach-
es and targets being taken by different provinces (which is, indeed, occurring
in the absence of meaningful federal action);
1 We discussed the legal basis for carbon pricing at length in our voluminous Turning Down the
Heat, as early as 1998.2 A Carbon budget for Canada
• Canada, as signatory to international agreements and responsible for future
negotiations on climate change, was viewed as ultimately having responsi-
bility for meeting our international obligations on this issue; and
• Several industries that are major sources of emissions, such as the aeronau-
tics and shipping industries, are federally regulated and (as discussed be-
low) it would be difficult for provincial legislation to regulate emissions from
such industries.
However, the Liberal Party election campaign has not proposed specific legislated or
policy tools, but instead promises to allow provinces to adopt their own approaches,
with the federal government playing a collaborative role, providing coordination How might ...
and support.
coordination take
We will … partner with provincial and territorial leaders to develop real cli- place and what
mate change solutions, consistent with our international obligations to pro-
tect the planet, all while growing our economy. Together, we will attend the are the ... roles
Paris climate conference, and within 90 days formally meet to establish a pan- of the federal
Canadian framework for combatting climate change. and provincial
We will work together to establish national emissions-reduction targets, and governments?
ensure that the provinces and territories have targeted federal funding and
the flexibility to design their own policies to meet these commitments, includ-
ing their own carbon pricing policies.2
It is important to emphasize that the type of “pan-Canadian framework for combat-
ting climate change” proposed is not necessarily weaker than a federal-government
mandated climate change plan. However, this approach does pose a number of chal-
lenges, not the least of which is how to ensure that the diverse efforts of provinces
come together into a coherent, transparent and sufficiently ambitious framework
that will meet Canada’s “international obligations to protect the planet…”
How might such coordination take place and what are the respective roles of the
federal and provincial governments? Leadership on an issue as important as climate
change should not be ad hoc. Rather, it is essential that there are clear and transpar-
ent structures and roles.
The purpose of this paper is to propose an overarching legal planning framework
that will help guide federal and provincial governments in developing and imple-
menting laws, policies and tools that work at both a provincial and national level.
Without such a framework, each province risks making decisions that are inconsis-
tent with efforts in other provinces and which do not result in a national approach.
It is also possibly that there will be gaps and missed opportunities in climate regula-
tions.
2 Liberal Party of Canada. New Plan for a Strong Middle Class. (2015), p. 39, available on-line at
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf, last accessed Oc-
tober 21, 2015.A carbon budget for canada 3 This proposal is consistent with commitments made by the incoming Liberal gov- ernment, and we offer it as one suggestion as to how such a national framework might work. A Carbon Budget for Canada draws upon several sources, including the Canada Health Act, Canadian national laws and policies concerning science- based decisions, and the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act 2008 (adapted to the Canadian context). We are seeking a framework which is science-based, trans- parent and will allow provincial governments to work collaboratively with the fed- eral government to create a strong national greenhouse gas targets. Part II discusses the constitutional and policy context for the framework, including the role of federal and provincial governments in addressing climate change, and some of the actions that have been taken to coordinate between the federal and provincial governments. Part III examines past greenhouse gas reduction targets set by Canada’s federal and provincial governments and considers whether the carbon budgeting approach ad- opted in the United Kingdom might facilitate better coordination between provin- cial targets. Part IV proposes the creation of a national scientific body, based on lessons learned from current and past federal and provincial expert bodies, to advise Canada’s fed- eral, provincial and (if desired) other levels of government on setting greenhouse gas reduction targets and achieving those targets; Part V examines the track record of Canadian governments in achieving (and failing to achieve) their greenhouse gas reduction targets, and how the carbon budget ap- proach can facilitate planning on how to meet those targets; and Part VI examines mechanisms that can encourage governments to fully implement their carbon budget implementation plans and achieve their targets, including re- quirements around transparency, consideration of carbon budgets into government decision-making and the use of federal funding, modelled on the Canada Health Act, to encourage implementation of the plans.
4 A Carbon budget for Canada
Part II – Provinces and Federal Roles in Planning for
Climate Change
To build a national climate change framework that respects the roles of the provinc-
es requires some understanding of the respective roles of each level of government
in addressing climate change, and an understanding of other models that have been
used to facilitate federal provincial cooperation. This part will review briefly the
respective federal and provincial powers related to climate change and will discuss
generally existing models for inter-provincial, or federal-provincial, cooperation
that help to inform these discussions.
Constitutional Powers and Climate Change
So which level of government in Canada is responsible for climate change? On the
one hand, the global atmosphere is international, which might favour a national re-
sponse. On the other, the provinces manage a wide range of activities that result in
greenhouse gas emissions, and which are impacted by climate change.
The Supreme Court of Canada has observed, in relation to the environment:
[T]he Constitution Act, 1867 has not assigned the matter of “environment”
sui generis to either the provinces or Parliament. The environment, as un-
derstood in its generic sense, encompasses the physical, economic and social
environment touching several of the heads of power assigned to the respec-
tive levels of government.3
In that decision, Justice La Forest noted that the environment is “a constitutionally
abstruse matter which does not comfortably fit within the existing division of pow-
ers without considerable overlap and uncertainty.”4
S.L. Hsu & R. Elliot, in examining the ability of Canada’s governments to address
climate change, explain:
The jurisprudence makes it clear that this connection to heads of power on
both sides of the federal-provincial divide is present even if the word “envi-
ronment” is understood in more limited terms to mean the physical envi-
ronment alone. Hence, the courts have upheld both federal and provincial
legislation designed to protect the physical environment. They have been
able to do so in part because of their willingness to permit Parliament and
the provincial legislatures to rely on their respective jurisdictions over both
causes and effects of polluting activities. For example, Parliament can regu-
late the polluting activities of interprovincial railways because it has juris-
diction over “Railways ... connecting [one] Province with any other or others
of the Provinces” under paragraph 92(10)(a). It can also regulate polluting
activities that harm the fisheries and the waters of the territorial sea because
it has jurisdiction over “seacoast and inland fisheries” and the territorial sea
under subsection 91(12) and the POGG power, respectively. Similarly, it is
3 [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3 at 63, 88 D.L.R. (4th) 1 [Oldman River].
4 Ibid., p. 64.A carbon budget for canada 5
generally understood that the provincial legislatures can regulate the pollut-
ing activities of the mining and manufacturing industries because they have
jurisdiction over the business activities of those industries under “property
and civil rights” in subsection 92(13). Provincial legislatures can also regu-
late polluting activities that harm provincial Crown lands and inland water-
ways because they have jurisdiction over such lands and waterways under
subsections 92(5) and 92(13), and/or 92(16), respectively.
The courts’ willingness to approach the validity of environmental protection
legislation in this manner contributes greatly to the “considerable overlap”
of federal and provincial legislation in this area noted by Justice LaForest
in Oldman River. The same polluting activities can, in theory, be regulated
by both orders of government — one on the basis of its jurisdiction over the
cause of those activities and the other on the basis of its jurisdiction over the
entities or places experiencing the effects.5
A number of commentators have noted that the federal government likely has broad
powers to enact legislation related to climate change. Noted constitutional scholar,
Peter Hogg, has expressed the view, consistent with Supreme Court of Canada liti-
gation about other environmental matters, that the Criminal Law power could pro-
vide the basis for such a power.6 Hsu and Elliot point to both the criminal law power
and the general “Peace, Order and Good Government” power.7 Questions as to the
constitutionality of federal climate change legislation raised by the Alberta govern-
ment in 2009 appear to be more about political positioning than constitutional law.8
The role of the provincial governments to regulate on some aspects of climate change
also appears to be well established. As Hsu and Elliot note, it is well established
that the provincial government powers over “property and civil rights” extend to the
regulation of pollution.
[I]t is generally understood that the provincial legislatures can regulate the
polluting activities of the mining and manufacturing industries because
they have jurisdiction over the business activities of those industries under
“property and civil rights” in subsection 92(13). Provincial legislatures can
also regulate polluting activities that harm provincial Crown lands and in-
land waterways because they have jurisdiction over such lands and water-
ways under subsections 92(5) and 92(13), and/or 92(16), respectively.9
5 Hsu, S.L. and R. Elliot. Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canada: Constitutional and
Policy Dimensions, 54 McGill L.J. 463 (2009), pp. 479-80.
6 P. Hogg. A Question of Parliamentary Power. C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder No. 114 (August
2008).
7 Hsu, above, note 5.
8 http://www.torys.com/about/news/2009/04/alberta-is-getting-ready-to-launch-a-constitu-
tional-battle-if-the-federal-government-institutes-more-aggressive-target__, last accessed 6 No-
vember 2015. On the other hand, the Environmental Law Centre of Alberta in 2003 published
a strong critique of the constitutionality of Alberta legislation intended to insulate its climate
change legislation from the effect of future federal legislation: http://www.elc.ab.ca/Content_
Files/Files/NewsBriefs/Vol.18No.12003.pdf, last accessed 6 November 2015.
9 Hsu, above note 5 at p. 480.6 A Carbon budget for Canada
That being said, there are some exceptions. The most important for the purposes
of this paper is the inability to regulate the core of federal works and undertak-
ings, federal lands, reserve lands, and certain other federally controlled industries
or lands. Notably:
• provinces cannot regulate anything going to the core of shipping or the air-
line industry – both major sources of air emissions. In addition, emissions
associated with activities that cross provincial borders may also be better
regulated by the federal government. These industries, if their GHG emis-
sions are to be regulated at all, will require federal regulation and there does
not appear to be any other way around that under Canada’s constitution.
• If the federal government regulates greenhouse gases any provincial regu-
lation cannot be inconsistent with this regulation. Federal and provincial
laws will be “consistent” if a regulated industry can comply with both levels
of government. Consequently, there is nothing stopping the provinces from
adopting more stringent GHG standards.
• The provinces cannot pass laws about what happens outside their borders.
However, provincial laws can take account of laws and systems that are cre-
ated beyond the province’s borders.
Even with the restrictions on provincial regulation, there is still plenty of scope for
provincial climat action. This is reflected in the steps already being taken in many
provinces. The question is how to bring those efforts together into a coordinated
strategy that could form the basis of a national climate change plan.
Canada’s three Territories do not have the same constitutional status as provin-
cial governments, and the territorial governments are created by federal legislation.
However, for the purposes of this paper we have assumed that any national strategy
is likely to treat the Territories as if they were equivalent to provinces. References
to provinces in the other Parts of this report should be read as including territories.
Existing federal and provincial climate collaboration
It is worth noting that there have been some meetings in recent years between the
federal government and the provinces, mostly aimed at information sharing and
consultation, rather than developing a collaborative national strategy.
According to the Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development,
“separate working-level committees, including industry and relevant provincial rep-
resentatives,” have been discussing current and planned federal regulations.10
However, meetings at a higher, more strategic level have been more limited. A “se-
nior management working group,” aimed at sharing information on regulatory op-
tions met, but apparently only once in October 2012.11 A deputy minister level “fed-
eral-provincial-territorial consultative committee,” however, has met twice yearly
“mainly to share information.”12
10 Above, note 10, p. 14.
11 Ibid, p. 14; The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Report. Spring
2012 (Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2012), p. 50.
12 Ibid., p. 14.A carbon budget for canada 7
The Commissioner’s 2014 report emphasized the need for a strong federal role in
coordination:
Most of the [provincial] officials we consulted cited the need for improved
mechanisms for consultation and cooperation on national emission reduction
initiatives.13
Models of federal-provincial coordination
The Canada Given the federal government’s key role in international pollution, it would make
Health Act ... sets sense for the federal government to enact legislation that directly regulates GHG
out the federal emissions. However, there are other approaches to legislation which provides fed-
expectations ... eral guidance while leaving the provinces to play a key role.
but leaves the One such example is the federal coordination brought about by the Canada Health
Act. The Canada Health Act sets out a funding arrangement between the federal
development and government and the provinces. Under the Canada Health Act provinces receive
implementation federal funding to assist in their health care systems provided that those health care
of the actual systems abide by the principles set out in the Act.
programs to the This is a very different model from most federal legislation. It sets out the federal
provinces. government expectations for the provinces, provides (financial) support, but leaves
the development and implementation of the actual programs to the provinces.
The reason for this different model is in large part because the federal government’s
constitutional mandate to address health care is less than clear. However, through
its spending powers, and the associated ability to define principles that must be
adopted in return for receiving funding, it is able to heavily influence, and provide
consistency between, provincial government regimes.
But while there is clear federal authority to regulate in respect of climate change,
the Canada Health Act may nonetheless be an important model for an approach
which allows, indeed depends, upon provincial action, while nonetheless ensuring
consistency and high standards across provinces.
The Canada Health Act approach stands in sharp contrast to, for example, the Ca-
nadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) (which is a prime candidate for the
legislation under which federal rules about GHG emissions might be made). Under
CEPA the federal government puts in place regulations of toxic substances. Prov-
inces can adopt their own regulations, but the federal rules apply unless a prov-
ince convinces the federal government that its rules are equivalent to the federal
rules. As noted in a recent report of the Commissioner for the Environment and
Sustainable Development, the federal government has apparently discussed using
“equivalency agreements” under CEPA in relation to the regulation of some sources
of greenhouse gas emissions, notably in relation to coal-fired power generation.14
Another important example of federal legislation that encourages strong provincial
leadership on an environmental issue is the Species At Risk Act, which respects
provincial authority to act in protecting endangered species, but which gives the
13 Ibid., p. 16.
14 Report of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development. Fall 2014. (Otta-
wa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2014), p. 14.8 A Carbon budget for Canada
federal government a residual role to step in where “the laws of the province do not
effectively protect [a] species or the residences of its individuals.”15
Nonetheless, the Canada Health Act is a very cooperative model, and one that must
be seriously considered in light of the current government’s promise of a cooperative
approach. This is not to say that the Canada Health Act approach could be trans-
ferred in its entirety to the issue of climate change. In relation to climate change
there are many areas in which the federal government has taken a leadership role
(national vehicle standards, to name just one example), and many others in which
it should. As noted, there are other areas in which only the federal government has
constitutional authority to act. Weak federal leadership that offloads responsibility
Weak federal
to the provinces, even if framed as collaboration, is not likely to result in a strong leadership
national plan. Unlike the Canada Health Act, the federal government in a national that offloads
climate framework needs to both engage in strong action in its own right and pro-
vide incentives and coordination for strong action at the provincial level.
responsibility to
the provinces ...
One could envisage federal legislation which ultimately had elements of all of these
approaches – establishing standards and principles for provincial action, but also
is not likely to
identifying areas where the federal government will take the lead. result in a strong
national plan.
Inter-Provincial coordination
Even though the federal government often plays a key role in coordination between
the provinces, provinces can and do coordinate between themselves. Provinces en-
ter into agreements on a wide range of issues. For example, provinces recognize one
another’s drivers licences and other qualifications, and provide medicare to their
residents when they travel in different provinces.
A number of provinces have negotiated agreements governing inter-provincial trade
and investment, developing agreements which regulate how each will treat the other
province’s companies. These agreements are extremely complicated, providing for
dispute resolution mechanisms and other features which could more easily have
been created through federal regulation.
On the environmental front the Canadian Council of Ministers on the Environment
(CCME) provides an opportunity for national coordination – between the provinces
and the federal government – on a wide range of environmental issues. The CCME
has set environmental standards which, while not legally binding, has formed the
basis for provincial regulation in many provinces. The CCME includes the federal
Minister of the Environment, and could certainly be a forum in which some aspects
of a national framework on climate change is developed.
Similarly, provincial coordination is already occurring in relation to climate change.
Several provinces have participated in discussions with each other and a number of
U.S. States about climate change as part of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).
Quebec is part of an emissions trading system with California that arose out of the
WCI, and Ontario seems close to joining. It is hoped by many that the standards de-
veloped under the WCI might one day form a basis for GHG regulation at a national
level in Canada and/or the U.S.
15 Species At Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29, s. 34.A carbon budget for canada 9 These models of interprovincial cooperation also provide some guidance as to how a national “province-up” approach to greenhouse gas planning and management might work. Both the federal and provincial governments have the potential to play important leadership roles in relation to climate change – both in developing the type of planning framework discussed in this report and through inter-provincial models of cooperation, along with federal-provincial models.
10 A Carbon budget for Canada Part III – Carbon Targets and Carbon Budgets This Part explores greenhouse gas reduction targets that Canada’s government, and Canada’s provincial governments, have set to help achieve global climate change goals. We note some of the challenges in setting consistent targets and in comparing provincial and national targets. We then turn to the United Kingdom, which in 2008 adopted a “carbon budgeting” approach to its targets – expressing aggressive short-, mid- and long- term green- house gas reduction goals in terms of a budget of greenhouse gases that can be emitted during a set budget period. This approach seems to have assisted the UK in planning, as discussed in Part V, and offers a number of lessons for Canada and its provinces. An overview of Canada’s climate change efforts Canada and other countries committed, in 1992 when they signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to work to “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthro- pogenic interference with the climate system.”16 To establish a road map of how to do this, countries turned to scientists. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an expert panel with representa- tion from around the world that has the responsibility of advising governments, in an open and transparent way, about the current knowledge about climate change and about what needs to be done globally to avoid dangerous interference with the global atmosphere. The IPCC’s recommendations on what needs to be done have changed, as the world’s governments have missed early, less difficult, opportunities to avoid dangerous cli- mate change, and as the science has evolved and become more robust. The basic message that we need to dramatically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions has remained constant. In 1990, in its first assessment report the IPCC described a scenario which would see a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 50% by 2050 (target year) relative to 1985 levels (base year) and suggested this would result in global temperature in- creases stabilizing at 2˚C.17 This form of describing greenhouse gas reductions, i.e. a target relative to a base-year, has remained the standard form at the international, national and provincial levels. The 2°C figure used in the first IPCC report remains an important goal, as there is a broad scientific consensus that any further increase creates a serious risk of danger- ous climate change. In the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, Canada and other governments recognized “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be be- low 2 degrees Celsius”, and pledged to make “deep cuts in global emissions … with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature 16 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992, article 2, available on-line at http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/ pdf/conveng.pdf, last accessed 26 October 2015. 17 AR 1, Summary for Policy Makers, p. xxiii and xxxiv.
A carbon budget for canada 11
below 2 degrees Celsius…”18 (Many scientists now believe that it is misleading to
imply that this 2˚C limit is safe, and have suggested that 1.5˚C is a more appropriate
threshold.)19
The most recent report of the IPCC calculates that if global efforts keep greenhouse
gases below 450 parts per million in the earth’s atmosphere, the earth is “likely” to
“maintain warming below 2°C,” but that these scenarios require “40 to 70% global
anthropogenic GHG emissions reductions by 2050 compared to 2010, and emis-
sions levels near zero or below in 2100.”20 “Likely” refers to a 66% or higher proba-
bility.21
Setting Canadian targets
Canadian governments have set national targets as noted below.
Commitment Reduction (per- Relative to by (target year)
cent) (base year)
Kyoto commitment 6 percent relative to 1990 by 2010
(1997) reduction levels
Turning the Corner1 20 percent Relative to 2006 by 2020
(2007 Canadian reduction levels
government policy)
Canada’s commitment 17 percent Relative to 2005 By 2020
in the Copenhagen reduction levels
Climate Accord (2009)
Immediately one of the major limitations of expressing targets in terms of reduc-
tions from a base-year become clear. In order to find out how much Canada is actu-
ally committing to do in each of these scenarios, you need more information – for
example, what the emissions levels were in the base-year – and even then some
math is required to compare the targets. Our friends at the Pembina Institute have
crunched the numbers, and so we know that the Turning the Corner target amounts
to a 3 percent reduction below 1990 levels, while the Copenhagen commitment is a
2 percent increase relative to 1990 levels.
The situation becomes still more complicated if we consider that the provinces are
promising to do to fight climate change.
• Quebec has a target of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.22 It has also prom-
ised to reduce emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030.23
18 Copenhagen Accord, articles 1 and 2, available on-line at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/
cop15/eng/11a01.pdf, last accessed 26 October 2015.
19 Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice. Report on the structured expert dia-
logue on the 2013–2015 review. (UNFCCC, Bonn: 2015), available on-line at http://unfccc.int/
resource/docs/2015/sb/eng/inf01.pdf, last accessed 9 November 2015.
20 IPCC. Climate Change 2014. Synthesis Report. Summary for Policy Makers, p. 20, available on-
line at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.
21 IPCC. Guidance note on the treatment of uncertainties., p. 3, available on-line at https://www.
ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf, last accessed 28 October 2015.
22 http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/communiques_en/2009/c20091123-cibleges.htm, last accessed 9
November, 2015.
23 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-greenhouse-gas-reduction-1.3231951, last ac-
cessed 29 October 2015.12 A Carbon budget for Canada
• British Columbia has legislated targets of 33 percent reductions against
2007 levels by 2020.24 This amounts to slightly less than a 20 percent reduc-
tion against 1990 levels.
• Ontario has promised to reduce emissions by 15 percent against 1990 levels
by 2020. Ontario has also promised to reduce its emissions by 37% relative
to 1990 levels by 2030.25
• Maritime provinces have promised to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
by 10% relative to 1990 levels by 2020.
• Alberta has taken a totally different approach, promising to reduce green-
house gas emissions by 50 MegaTonnes relative to a base-year of 2020 (ie.
the province’s estimate of the emissions that would occur in 2020 if no ef-
forts to reduce greenhouse gases occurred). This goal translates into a 58
percent increase above 1990 levels in 2020. The new government of Al- This type of
berta, to its credit, is currently considering new targets. management
With targets set years out (2020 is fast approaching now, but less so when federal in finances
targets were set in 1997, 2007 and 2009, respectively), targets risks being aspira-
tional, with little short-term direction about what needs to be done.
would never be
accepted.
In addition, unless a government plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions uniform-
ly across the board, a province or nation-wide target says little about which sec-
tor or agency should achieve which reductions, and how the broader target will be
achieved.
This type of management in finances would never be accepted. Little would be
gained by setting a national goal of reducing the collective federal and provincial
debt by 2020 by 17% relative to 2005 debt, but with a target for BC of reducing the
share that it had in 2007 by 33%. Quite aside from whether those are good enough
goals, the approach is confusing, and understanding the relationship between the
BC goal and the federal goal requires some serious number crunching.
But it’s also worth noting that these targets were, for the most part, set by politi-
cians, rather than by scientists, and it’s difficult to understand where these reduc-
tions fit in terms of the global targets.
In some cases provincial (and proposed national) targets have been based loosely
on past IPCC recommendations. For example, the 4th IPCC report reported that sce-
narios in which the world avoided 2˚C increases in temperature involved industrial-
ized countries reducing their emissions by 25- 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and
80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050. These figures described industrialized countries
collectively, rather than an obligation directly transferable to Canada, but have been
viewed as providing a guide for Canadian emissions targets. The targets proposed
in a private members bill, Bill C-311, which was introduced by the NDP in 2009, but
supported by all opposition parties, were based upon the more modest end of this
range (25% by 1990 and 80% by 2050).26 Similarly, several provinces have targets
24 British Colombia (2008) Climate Action Plan – Phase One at 13. Available at http://www.
livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf
25 https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2015/05/ontario-first-province-in-canada-to-set-2030-green-
house-gas-pollution-reduction-target.html, last accessed 29 October 2015.
26 Bill C-311, s. 5.A carbon budget for canada 13 that approach (but do not meet) the reductions suggested by these IPCC scenarios recommended targets. Others, however, lack any apparent scientific grounding, and fall well short of what Canada needs to do to “play its part” in stabilizing the global atmosphere and avoid a 2˚C rise in global temperatures. It is crucial to recognize that, in addition to a target, governments need to have a clear and realistic plan of how to achieve those targets, and need to implement that plan. If concrete steps are not taken to achieve these goals, then they are nothing more than greenwashing. Planning is discussed further in Part V. Lessons from the United Kingdom In 2008, the United Kingdom became the first country in the world to require man- datory economy-wide carbon budgets. The carbon budget process was created by a Labour government, but was broadly supported by all political parties, and has primarily been administered by Conservative governments, during which time the UK achieved the target of its first “carbon budget” – which amounted to a 23% re- duction in GHG emissions in 2012 relative to 1990 levels, and is considered to be on track to achieving a 35% reduction in emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2020, although further work will be required if the country is to achieve its goal of 50% by 2025.27 The UK’s targets are much more ambitious than anything we’ve seen as yet in Can- ada, and they have had more success in meeting their targets. This is partly because the UK’s emissions peaked earlier (due to earlier mitigation efforts). But it seems to be, at least in part, due to the carbon budget structure and the institutions that support it. So what is a carbon budget? A financial budget sets out how much money a government, corporation or indi- vidual expects to earn and spend over a period of time. Knowing its sources of rev- enues and expenses, a responsible financial planner can then plan, to ensure that the revenues are met and the expenses do not exceed those revenues. A carbon budget represents a set amount of carbon that can be emitted during a given time globally, by a nation (Canada or the UK), a region within a country (a province or Scotland), or by some other sub population or type of activity.28 It places a cap on emissions which can then be broken down and allocated to particular time periods, ministries, regions or industries. When the UK began using carbon budgets in 2008, the concept of a country-wide was little known globally. But since then there’s been a lot of discussion about a 27 Committee on Climate Change website, Carbon Budgets and Targets page, available at https:// www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/carbon-budgets-and- targets/, last accessed 30 October 2015. 28 Gilbert, A and Reece, G (2006) Developing a Carbon Budget for the UK: With opportunities for EU Action. Ecofys, London United Kingdom at 2, , available at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/ reports/carbon_budgetting.pdf, last accessed 9 November 2015.
14 A Carbon budget for Canada global carbon budget – the idea that there is only so much GHG that can be emitted between now and 2050 if we are to avoid a 2˚C rise in global temperatures (and dan- gerous climate change). And in 2014 the most recent IPCC report for the first time expressed global targets in terms of how much can be emitted, suggesting that if we want a 66% chance of limit- ing global temperature rises to less than 2°C, then the world has a total carbon budget of 1000 GigaTonnes of Carbon; the IPCC observed that the world has spent 515 GtC of that budget (as of 2011). So now there’s some awareness of the use of the term carbon budget at the global lev- el, but it still make be new to suggest that carbon budgets should be used in a national and provincial targets to help inform climate change planning. And, in particular, the practice in the UK of setting short-term carbon budgets to aid in planning (for 5 year periods in the UK, and an annual budget in Scotland). To a certain extent, a measured reduction (expressed not as a percentage but as an amount of emissions) and a measured budget (expressed as allowed emissions in a given year or years) are flip sides of the same approach. One focuses on how many GHGs can be emitted in a given pe- riod, while the other focuses on how much emissions should be reduced in a given period. Figure 1 shows the U.K.’s targets for 2020, 2025 and 2050, together with the first 4 carbon budgets. A carbon bud- geting approach focuses on the amount which can be emitted, while the targets approach focuses on a reduction from a base year (1990 in the case of the U.K.) However, although to some degree a question of nuance, there are real benefits to a carbon budgeting approach. Many of these were described in a 2006 paper commissioned by Friends of the Earth UK which in many ways led to the UK adopt- ing the Carbon budgeting approach: In some ways a carbon budget is not extremely different from the existing system of setting and monitoring interim targets, however there are some ad- vantages. A carbon budget differs in language, and makes it clearer that national emis- sions of greenhouse gases are strictly limited, and cannot be overshot. The terminology is stronger than that of targets, which can be more acceptably missed. Secondly, the use of a long-term budget will help to ensure … that it is the to- tal emissions profile that will be monitored over time, rather than snapshots of emissions reductions at wide intervals.
A carbon budget for canada 15
A corollary of this second point is that the budgeting system will aid policy-
makers, rather than put them under pressure. A more regular monitoring
and review system will help policy-makers better understand the way in
which the UK’s emissions profile is changing, and thus amend policies in
response.
A long-term carbon budget would also provide direction and certainty for
businesses and investors in emissions reduction technologies. A recent
survey of FTSE 100 companies quoted in the Financial Times (31/07/06)
found that “businesses are confused by the government’s policies on cli-
mate change and the lack of clarity is hampering investment decisions.” The
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) have also made official statements
stressing “the need for intermediate targets and milestones that take better
account of business investment cycles, and for a streamlined policy frame-
work which promotes technology development as well as action by all sec-
tors of the economy.” This need to provide certainty and targets for business
has been recognised by UK Government.29
We are not suggesting that Carbon budgets somehow replace discussion about
emissions reductions targets – rather a science-based emissions reduction target
may be an important factor in setting a carbon budget. The budget may assist in
conceptualizing and realising the required emissions reductions.
The UK’s Carbon Budget approach has also shown itself to be flexible in allowing
comparisons between budgets within the UK – notably allowing the carbon budgets
for “devolved governments” – Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK – to be easily
compared and integrated with the UK’s national carbon budget. This is clearly an
additional benefit in Canada, particularly if the federal government intends to build
a provincial government-up approach. Such an approach has the potential to pro-
vide clarity over respective emissions levels in each province and their relationship
to a national emissions level. Moreover, it sets the stage for the difficult discussion
about how budgets should be set for each province.
A brief overview of the UK Approach
The Climate Change Act 2008 (“CCA”) set an emissions reduction target of at least
80 percent lower than 1990 levels by 205030 and created national carbon budgets
achieve this. Carbon budgets break down that long-term target into short-term pe-
riods, each with their own target. This provides a clear long term framework for
mitigation planning giving businesses and individuals direction and certainty in the
switch to a low carbon economy.
29 Above, note 23 at pp. 13-14.
30 Climate Change Act 2008 c. 27 s1.16 A Carbon budget for Canada
An example of a carbon budget
The carbon budget is quite literally a statement of the target for the budget pe-
riod, expressed in terms of emissions that may occur during the budget period.
Thus, the operative section of the 4th Carbon Budget Order states simply:
The carbon budget for the 2023–2027 budgetary period is
1,950,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The budget basics...
Carbon budgets are set for 5-year periods with three budgets set at a time.31 They
apply to six listed GHGs32 although the Secretary of State has the discretion to ex-
clude GHGs other than CO2 from any budgetary period.33 In each case, the budget
expresses the targets in terms of the quantity of the gas that can be emitted during
the budget period.
Interesting, the Parliament of Scotland, in its 2009 Climate Change Act, elected to
set annual emissions targets (budgets), rather than follow the U.K.’s 5-year budget
approach.34 There are pros and cons to each approach. A 5-year budget gives flexibil-
ity and recognizes that there will be unavoidable year fluctuations in greenhouse gas
emissions, while an annual budget provides for greater accountability – particularly
for governments that are typically elected for 4 year terms.35
A number of matters must be taken into account when the budgets are set including
scientific knowledge about climate change, economic and social circumstances, and
circumstances at European and international levels.36
Scientific advice
The CCA creates an independent Committee on Climate Change (“the Committee”)
which the Government is required to consult when setting the budgets.37 The Com-
mittee is discussed in more detail in Part IV, below. The Secretary of State reserves
the power to alter a set budget it if there are significant developments in scientific
knowledge or international law or policy.38
Reporting and monitoring...
The Secretary of State has considerable reporting obligations including reports on:
proposals and policies to meet carbon budgets,39 and annual statements of UK emis-
31 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s4.
32 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s92.
33 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s5(4).
34 Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; See also Annex B in Government of Scotland. Low
Carbon Scotland (Glasgow, 2013), available on-line at http://www.gov.scot/Publica-
tions/2013/06/6387/14, last accessed 3 November 2015.
35 We did consider the possibility of recommending a 4 year carbon budget period to reflect this, but
given that a national framework will involve budgets from each province and the federal govern-
ment, each of which will have its own electoral cycle, which in many cases is not fixed, there do not
seem to be particular benefits to a 4 year cycle over a 5 year one.
36 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s10.
37 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s32.
38 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 ss6, 21.
39 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s13.A carbon budget for canada 17
sions.40 The Committee must also provide progress reports.41 In the annual state-
ment of emissions the Secretary of State must identify the methods used to measure
or calculate the net amount of emissions.42 Carbon accounting is to otherwise keep
track of carbon units (units issued under international schemes) that are credited to
the UK account.43
Meeting the budgets...
Where it seems that the budget is going to be missed by a small amount the govern-
ment is able to borrow one percent from the next budgetary period.44 Conversely,
where net emissions are below the budget allowance they can be carried forward
into the next budgetary period. 45 International carbon units may also be credited to
or debited from the UK carbon account, although use of such units may be limited
by the Secretary of State.46
With this legal framework the UK is well placed to
Comparing provincial carbon budgets plan for mitigation. The carbon budgets set clear
As shown above, it can be sions for BC, Ontario, and caps on emissions and create a structure within
difficult to compare green- Quebec for 1990, 2005 which mitigation plans can be created. The frame-
house gas reduction tar- and 2013 are contrasted work provides guidance and certainty to business-
gets between provinces, or with a “carbon budget” es and industry and is also flexible enough to work
between the province and for 2020 (made up of the with international or regional agreements.
the federal government, three provinces promised
when those targets are ex- targets). Because the 2020 Features of a made in Canada carbon-
pressed only in terms of target is expressed in budget
percent reductions from a terms of actual emissions
base-year by a target year. allowed, the total “carbon The UK model clearly has a lot of lessons to offer
budget” for the 3 provinc- Canada. However, there are differences between
But comparing, and com-
es can easily be calculated the two countries which need to be recognized and
bining, carbon budgets,
by simply adding the 3 tar- addressed in a budgeting framework.
and comparing them
gets together (just as the The most notable is that in Canada, government
with actual emissions, is
total actual emissions are powers and responsibilities are divided between
as easy as basic addition.
calculated by adding the the Canadian government and the provinces.
In the figure below, for
actual emissions of each While Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have
example, the actual emis-
province for each year.) developed and administered their own policies
to reduce greenhouse gases, these occur in some
parts of the country only, and within a national
carbon budget that applies to and guides the entire
40 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s16.
41 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s36.
42 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s16(1) CCA.
43 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s26. See also the Carbon
Accounting Regulations 2009 No.1257.
44 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 ss17(1), 17(2).
45 Climate Change Act 2008 c.27 s17(3).
46 As was the case under the Climate Change Act 2008
(2020 Target, Credit Limit and Definitions) Order 2009
which prohibited the use of international credits for the first
budgetary period.You can also read
